Q&A with Senator James Lankford: President Trump's efforts to end the war in Ukraine

President Trump's pledge to bring an end to the war in Ukraine has begun to gain momentum in the last week — he met with Russian President Putin Friday in Alaska and then with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy Monday at the White House. No firm agreements have emerged from these meetings, but there are signs of progress, including a pledge from President Trump to be part of a security guarantee for Ukraine, in the aftermath of a peace agreement, and tentative plans for Presidents Zelenskyy and Putin to hold face-to-face talks.

In an interview with Griffin Media on Tuesday afternoon, Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) offered his thoughts on the recent developments.

CAMERON: Senator, what's your takeaway from the last few days, the summit in Alaska, and the meetings yesterday at the white House?

LANKFORD: Yeah, it's an opportunity for peace. Putin has not wanted the war to end. This war would have ended a long time ago if he hadn't invaded the country of Ukraine and continued to be able to slaughter his neighbors. So, Putin's been very aggressive trying to take as much territory as he can. Obviously, the Ukrainians are trying to be able to protect their country and their sovereignty. so it's been up to Putin to be able to stop the aggression. This is a moment that has not happened in the past three and a half years, that Putin's at least willing to talk about stopping the aggression, and to be able to pull back. So let's have a talk, let's see where we can actually go; let's see if there's a possibility that we can actually get to an end.

CAMERON: No question, President Trump deserves credit for getting this process moving. [But] as recently as last week, you referred to Putin as a war criminal. Your colleague, Senator (Markwayne) Mullen has called him a thug. What was your reaction seeing President Trump literally roll out a red carpet for Putin and even applaud him as he arrived?

LANKFORD: Yeah, he's a war criminal and a thug and a KGB agent, and he's someone who attacked his neighbors, but this is a moment to try to see what can we get from this moment, to actually get to a moment of peace. So, it is entirely right for Trump to be able to say, let's have a serious conversation, let's talk about he is a world leader of a large nation, So let's give him his due as a leader, but also be fully aware of who he really is and what his ambitions are. He has been willing to go into the countries around him and has just not hesitated to be able to go take whatever he wants. So let's find a way to be able to put him back in the box, and to be able to say you're going to be who you are in the country of, Russia. We're not going to change that but you can't just attack your neighbors. So, have the conversation. If we're going to have peace, you've got to be able to deal with people often that you do not like, do not agree with. But we've got to be able to work towards establishing peace. And Trump has been an expert at doing that.

CAMERON: You and some of your other Senate colleagues have been pretty clear about how you feel about Putin and not wanting to show him too much deference, while obviously understanding that he's part of any eventual solution here. I heard where Senator (Majority Leader John) Thune (R-SD) made it clear yesterday the Senate would be ready to move, to try and give him (President Trump) some more leverage. And I guess he was talking about potentially putting that sanctions package into play. Is that something that you would still advocate for, or do you just need to kind of sit back and let the president handle this?

LANKFORD: No, I think the president always is the lead negotiator for the United States in dealing with international policy. That's the role of the president. They need to have the latitude to do that, but they also need to have the tools in their hands to be able to provide maximum leverage. And I feel like, as a senator, one of the things that I can do is give the president more leverage on the issue of sanctions, not only on Russia, but on people that buy oil from Russia -- countries like India, which is an ally of the United States and a partner in democracy. We don't get along on everything, but we get along on most things. And with India, they're buying a lot of Russian oil at this point. So they're literally facilitating the death of the Ukrainians and the prolonging of this war. We should be willing to be able to put sanctions on India and say, if you're going to facilitate prolonging this war with Ukraine, we're going to be able to put pressure on you as well, because we want this war to end and we want greater stability in the area. And we feel like facilitating, creating more weapons and more money for Russia, just facilitates this war, farther and farther. So, yes, I'm very willing. I've been one of the senators who has been pushing to be able to add what's called secondary sanctions to countries that facilitate Russia in their war machine. So let's give those tools to the president and encourage him to continue to negotiate for a peaceful resolution.

CAMERON: So, are you saying you think that you guys should go ahead and pass that, or are you saying, no, we'll wait until the president tells us to do so?

LANKFORD: No, I'd rather go ahead and pass it. Obviously, the president's going to decide when he wants to be able to use it, but giving the president the authority to be able to use that, I think, is very important, so that whoever he's negotiating with knows the United States Congress in the United States is serious about trying to be able to end this war.

CAMERON: Okay. Last thing on this subject. The big topic yesterday (Monday) really was the security guarantee (for Ukraine). And there was a lot of back and forth on that. We still don't really have any kind of clear understanding of what that would look like, although the president did say today it would not mean U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine. But what can you add? What would that look like as far as you're concerned, from a U.S. standpoint?

LANKFORD: Interestingly enough, in 1991, Ukraine pushed the Soviet Union at that time out of its country, declared independence. But they still had a lot of Soviet era nuclear missiles still in Ukraine. So the United States actually negotiated with Ukraine to be able to get those missiles out of their country so they wouldn't have nuclear weapons there. Part of the deal with that was we would come to their defense if they were ever attacked. So strangely enough, in 1991, the United States made an agreement for security guarantees for Ukraine. We have fulfilled that by providing the weapons and assistance during this war with Russia. That's not putting troops on the ground, though. Oklahoma has put troops on the ground before in Ukraine. In 2017, the Oklahoma National Guard spent a full year on the ground in Ukraine in Lviv, training the Ukrainian military, resetting their command structure, helping them with their communications, helping and training and equipping them for an eventual war with Russia, if it ever were to happen. And so Oklahoma has actually been very much engaged in trying to be able to help the Ukrainians be able to defend themselves. We want to continue to be able to do whatever we can to be able to help the Ukrainians defend themselves against an aggressor that is Russia. But that doesn't necessarily mean boots on the ground during a war between Ukraine and Russia. But we do want to help Ukraine be able to live as a sovereign nation.